Vitamins and nutrients from GMOs

This week, my fellow #Moms4GMOs Kavin Senapathy and I published an article in Forbes magazine (every time I think of "Forbes magazine", I get that Bruno Mars song stuck in my head...). Our article was about how there are documented instances of foods losing their nutritional content when they obtain Non-GMO certification from the Non-GMO Project. There was a LOT we wanted to write, but we had to keep it short so we focused on baby formula. So in this post, I wanted to write a few more of my thoughts on this important topic.

The nutritional fortification of our food is a big deal. Sometimes, food is enriched with nutrients that are lost during food processing, like when nutrients are added back to flour. Then there are foods that are fortified to provide more nutrients for health. Cereals are a good example.

The enrichment and fortification of our food is of importance to public health. Micronutrient deficiencies are an issue in developing nations, as well as underprivileged segments of our population. As such, the World Health Organization has recognized the fortification of food with micronutrients as beneficial to public health because it can “deliver nutrients to large segments of the population without requiring radical changes in food consumption patterns.” (see this publication from WHO and this post from CDC for more info).

So the fact that these nutrients are being removed from food just to obtain a certification that is of no health benefit is mind boggling, because our food is actually becoming less healthy because of it. Genetically modified yeast and bacteria are often used to make micronutrients because they're very efficient. Think of them as vitamin producing mini-factories. At the same time, many vitamins use corn or soy as starting material in manufacturing, and this corn or soy may be genetically modified which is somehow a "health risk"...

Multivitamins. Image from Wikimedia Commons.

The idea that anti-GMO activists believe that this is a risk just blows my mind. Genetically modified corn is used as starting material to make a vitamin. In that process, it's fermented/processed. A pure vitamin is produced. A miniscule, yet nutritionally important amount of the vitamin is added to a food during it's processing (which is why it's a micronutrient). And somehow, people are concerned that Round-Up or some other contaminant made its way through all of that in sufficient quantities to pose a risk?

No doubt there are detractors who argue that fortification and food enrichment does not address the issues that we’re facing with nutritional deficiencies in America; that we should strive towards diets with more fresh fruit, vegetables and whole grains as sources of vitamins and minerals. While I agree this is the ideal and should be our societal goal, we cannot simply reduce the enrichment of our food without having achieved it. The removal of these nutrients due to a marketing label that has no scientific basis puts at-risk individuals in our population in harm’s way.

Naturally modified sweet potatoes

Several months ago, a paper was published about sweet potatoes being "natural GMOs". It got a lot of coverage in the press. I thought that it was high time that I read the original paper to see what it was all about.

The paper is freely available in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. My mom freaked out the first time she heard me jokingly call the journal "pee-nass" after they rejected one of my papers during grad school). The paper starts by defining horizontal gene transfer. This naturally occurring process is when a gene goes from one species to another, and has been studied quite a bit in bacteria. Scientists are starting to identify instances of horizontal gene transfer in non-bacterial organisms: sometimes the gene that gets transferred ends up being non-functional, but sometimes it does. So horizontal gene transfer can also be important in the evolution of species.

When anti-GMO activists claim that GMOs are not natural because scientists are taking a gene from one species and adding it to another, it is often pointed out that horizontal gene transfer happens "naturally" without any human intervention. To understand this point (and the importance of this paper), it is necessary to explain one of the more common methods that scientists use for transgenesis: Agrobacterium-mediated transformation.

Agrobacterium induced gall (Wikimedia commons)

Agrobacterium-Mediated Transformation

The summary below is from this freely available review (any additional references are indicated). The Agrobacterium genus has many different bacteria that cause different plant diseases. For genetic engineering, the species used is Agrobacterium tumefaciens which causes crown gall disease. Crown galls are growths on plants, similar to tumors. When the spouse read this, he pointed out that many of the gardening books that he's read highlight the fact that you're not supposed to use pruning shears on plants that have galls without cleaning them, so that you don't transfer the bacteria from one plant to another. Galls develop when a chunk of DNA from the bacteria, known as Ti-DNA (Tumor inducing) gets added to the plant's own DNA. For this to happen, the DNA needs to get cut out of the bacteria, transported into the plant cell, and integrated into the plant's genome. This process is carried out by proteins that are made by the bacteria known as vir genes (virulence), and there's quite a few of them that perform different tasks in the transformation process.

Crown gall caused by Agrobacterium (Wikimedia commons)

The vir genes get activated by sensing compounds that are released when a plant is injured. Think of the injury as an alarm bell that suddenly alerts the Agrobacterium to the fact that infection is now possible. Once the vir proteins are active, they process the bacterial DNA that will be transported into the plant cell. This DNA is flanked on both sides by a very short segment of DNA that acts as a recognition site for vir proteins which then cut the DNA. Think of the short DNA segments as neon lights flashing "CUT HERE". Once the vir proteins cut the DNA, it is transported by proteins across a channel in the plant's cell wall. In this process, different vir proteins transport the DNA, protect the DNA from getting degraded, and also form the channel to get the DNA into the plant cell, so there are many players in this process. Once it's in the plant cell's nucleus, the bacterial DNA gets integrated with the plant DNA, and several mechanisms have been proposed as to how this may happen. Once the DNA gets integrated, it can activate gall-causing proteins using the plant's own cellular machinery. The DNA that gets transferred from the bacterium to the plant is known as T-DNA (Transfer-DNA. Remember this one, because the abbreviation will be used in the paper).

A fear inducing meme, made by GMO Inside!
Rebranded by David Avocado Wolfe.

In genetic engineering, the Agrobacterium has been engineered such that the bacteria no longer causes tumors. Additionally, the T-DNA consists of the gene that scientists want to transfer into the plant, such as the gene that confers Round-Up resistance, or a gene that may confer drought resistance.

Many anti-GMO websites will use emotional phrases such as "GMOs use bacteria that cause cancer in plants" (see the image from GMO Inside! that I've shared here). Although the statement is correct, it's a half truth because the bacteria has been engineered to no longer cause tumors in plants. So the intent is to evoke fear by combining scary or emotional phrases and terms.

So now we'll get back to the paper.

The Sweet Potato: Nature's GMO

The paper outlines that the sweet potato is "one of the oldest domesticated crops in the Americas". Archeological studies have found it in caves dating back as far as 8,000-10,000 years. There are 13 known species and 2 naturally occurring hybrids. The authors explain that in a previous study that was studying short RNA molecules in sweet potato, they had found RNA molecules that were similar to Agrobacterium, so they decided to investigate this further by looking for Agrobacterium T-DNA sequences in the genome of the sweet potato. First, they took the snippets that they had identified in their first study and confirmed that they were real using a different technology. This is important, because it highlights that their findings weren't due to contamination or some issue related to the methodology they chose. Once this had been confirmed, they went on to identify the entire T-DNA sequence in the sweet potato genome. They found two large regions of Agrobacterium rhizogenes DNA: this bacteria is from the Agrobacterium family and it creates galls in plant roots. The two regions of Agrobacterium DNA that they identified in the sweet potato genome contained the code for potentially 9 different proteins. Again, these findings were confirmed using a different technique.

They found that one of these large DNA segments had gotten inserted into the sweet potato genome at a site where there was a gene, thereby interrupting the gene. They found evidence suggesting that the gene that was interrupted was active before the large DNA segment interrupted it.

The authors went on to determine if the genes in the large DNA segments that were inserted into the sweet potato were turned on. They did this by checking to see if the inserted DNA had been transcribed into RNA. Sure enough, the inserted genes were turned on; not at very high levels but still detectable in most tissues.

The authors decided to check to see if the genes that had been inserted into the sweet potato they were studying were also present in other sweet potato varieties. They selected a wide variety of plants from different continents. They found that one of the large DNA segments was present in nearly every domesticated sweet potato plant examined, but wasn't present in wild sweet potatoes. The second large DNA segment wasn't present in every sweet potato variety. The authors hypothesize that the widespread presence of one of the large DNA segment in domesticated sweet potatoes suggests that it caused a trait that we selected for.

The paper concludes with this paragraph "Agrobacterium-mediated transformation has been the method of choice for the development of genetically modified crops. Despite their cultivation on more than 170 million ha, the growth and consumption of transgenic crops still faces societal opposition. This has impeded their use in efforts to contribute to a more sustainable agricultural future. Our data reveal that T-DNA integration, the interruption of an F-box gene, and the subsequent fixation of foreign T-DNA into the sweet potato genome occurred during the evolution and domestication of this crop, which is one of the world’s most consumed foods. This finding could influence the public’s current perception that transgenic crops are “unnatural.” "

Why is this Paper Important

I think it's important to highlight the key features of the paper, with respect to genetic engineering (the points below are my thoughts and summary).

-Thousands of years ago, a bacteria closely related to the bacteria used to create GMOs, inserted a bunch of genes into the sweet potato. The GMOs on the market add fewer genes than what was naturally introduced into the sweet potato.

-The introduction of these genes into the sweet potato generated an "unintended consequence": namely, that a sweet potato gene was interrupted.

Sweet Potato Cakes that are "GMO-Free"

-The fact that these changes are present in domesticated sweet potatoes and not wild sweet potatoes points to the strong possibility that they were selected by artificial selection. In natural selection, it's the survival of the fittest where the genes that give reproductive and survival advantages usually win. So a mutant plant that creates a more toxic substance may propagate its genes because fewer predators will eat it. In artificial selection, it's the genes that are most convenient for humans that win out, and we see it most commonly in agriculture and animal breeding. That means that we might select for genes that create cuddly dogs. Or we might select for genes that give rise to sweeter fruit. But that does not mean that the Chihuahuas that we've created and the oranges that we've bred are the strongest to survive out in the wild. If the genes examined in this paper did in fact give the sweet potato selective advantage out in the wild, then odds are that the wild sweet potatoes would have the gene, too. So this point, that we humans selected for a mutant that arose through transgenesis, defies the anti-GMO argument that nature has created what is naturally best over the course of evolution. The incredible irony is that what we selected for was transgenic in origin.

-I think the example of the sweet potato can make the legal definition of the term "GMO" more difficult. If it's defined as a crop where genes have been added by Agrobacterium, then should the sweet potato be excluded?

-This is a great example for individuals who think that genes from viruses or bacteria in crops are "unnatural" (or what I call "The Ick Factor").

In conclusion, I usually don't use the argument that "everything we eat is a GMO". But, in the case of the sweet potato, the genes added arose by Agrobacterium-mediated transgenesis, which is a method used in modern-day genetic engineering. So next time you're shopping, you'll know that the "Organic, GMO-Free, Sweet Potato Cakes" that are for sale at Costco have bacterial DNA and proteins in them.

Anti-GMO Activists: Venezuela is Not Your Trophy

On January 21st, the Organic Consumer Association posted this on Twitter:
 
Having grown up in Venezuela, it set off a murderous rage in my soul, and I'm going to take some time to outline how that one tweet represents the epitome of the anti-GMO lobby's head-up-their-ass-ishness.

The Organic Consumer Association (OCA) is an advocacy group that believes in the dangers of vaccines (see here and here) and the benefits of homeopathy, among other things. But their celebration of GMO bans across the world, with no knowledge whatsoever of the country's problems embodies their privileged ignorance. After all, why would you tout the evils of vaccines if you haven't known someone who died of measles? Why would you celebrate the banning of GMOs in a country if you haven't stood in line to buy milk?

That's not an exaggeration. As some of you may know, I was raised in Venezuela but left to pursue my education after graduating from high school. With my parents and siblings still living in the country, I visited nearly every year, but my visits became less and less frequent. As of today, no one in my family lives there. While my parents lived in Venezuela, it was traditional that during their visits to me in Canada, I'd take them to the grocery store. Like kids in Disneyland, they'd stand in the middle of the grocery store staring at the abundance of it all, and then top the grocery cart with all the things they couldn't find. Some of it was due to cultural differences (for example, peanut butter isn't commonly eaten in Venezuela). But sometimes, it was the most basic of items. During a trip to the US, my sister once shared pictures that she took of the milk aisle in a grocery store during a particularly harsh milk shortage.

Venezuela's food shortages are due to many economic and social factors: restrictive regulations on currency, an inflation rate set to surpass 700%, a political climate that has made private investments challenging, and agrarian reform that has transferred lands into the hands of owners with little to no experience, among many others.

Empty Aisles at a Venezuelan Supermarket
From Wikimedia

As such, a ban on GMOs must necessarily be viewed and reported through the lens of how it will impact Venezuela's food supply. The ban is very far reaching: not only does it ban growing GMOs, but also their import, as well as research on transgenic crops. At a time when Venezuela relies heavily on imported food, particularly from Argentina and Brazil who are two of the world's leaders in GM-crop growth, such a ban might have very severe implications.

The OCA wasn't alone in its celebration of this "progressive" seed law. Here are a few other organizations that celebrated the ban:

The Hollywood Food Guild rejoiced:

Go Venezuela! Venezuela's neighbor Brazil is the biggest #gmo grower after the US. #ag #pesticides #monsanto https://t.co/dmf6MEVtCO

— Hollywood Food Guild (@HollywoodFood) December 16, 2015

GMWatch was in a celebratory mood:

The approval of the #GMO seed ban in Venezuela makes for a joyous end of year. Celebratory tweets coming up! Let's work for this everywhere.

— GMWatch (@GMWatch) December 25, 2015

Hundreds of people tweeted in celebration of the ban, hoping that their own country would soon follow suit. There were several articles that circulated many times: one article that was co-written by a Venezuelan activist which I can only describe as government propaganda, and a second that was published in EcoWatch. But every piece that I read left me with even more questions.

• The article claimed that the new seed law banned "transgenic (GMO) seed while protecting local seed from privatization". Why was there no mention of an uncommercialized locally developed, ring-spot resistant variety of GM papaya, particularly when it is one of the country's more popular fruits? Since it was developed by the public sector, isn't this an excellent example of endogenous agronomy that could be resistant to privatization?
• Many articles claimed that the law was a product of "direct participatory democracy", and the summary from the OCA stated that the law "was hammered out through a deliberative partnership between members of the country’s National Assembly and a broad-based grassroots coalition of eco-socialist, peasant, and agroecological oriented organizations and institutions". Why weren't agronomists part of that equation? Why was there no mention of the fact that scientists were not consulted and in fact, Venezuela's Academy of Physical, Mathematical, and Natural Sciences issued a statement asking the National Assembly to reconsider the law?
• Venezuela has had a moratorium on growing GMOs for several years. The OCA mentions this by stating that Venezuela has virtually had a ban on GMOs since 2004, and that this is aligned with the country's goal of "endogenous development". But none of the articles outlined how this ban has helped the country and its economy. Is 10 years not enough time to see an impact? How did the ban help endogenous agronomy? Were any new crops developed nationally in the decade since the ban? If not, how will a ban on GMO research help the nation's goals?
• In 2013, a local research paper published a study demonstrating that a patented corn variety was being grown by the government. If Venezuela had a ban on GMOs since 2004, why were government farms growing GMOs? Why didn't any of the articles report this? Is this the type of "progressive" government-led food transparency that GMWatch is celebrating and would like other nations to adopt?
• The law does not outline if processed foods derived from GMOs can be imported. Does this mean that the country will now rely more heavily on importing finished goods instead of imported crops that can be developed into goods within the nation?
• Why didn't any of the pieces say anything on what this law represents in terms of Venezuela's economy and food shortages? Could it possibly be that the Hollywood Food Guild failed to read any of the 20,000 hits that I pulled up when I typed in "Venezuela Food shortages" into Google News?
• The article that the OCA bases it's piece on states that "national seed legislation is increasingly being co-opted by corporate agribusiness interests", and that this law will put a stop to that. Is the OCA under the impression that corporate agribusinesses only produce GMO seeds? Is EcoWatch unaware of the fact that there are dozens of transgenic crops being developed by public sector and non-profit groups around the world?

I find it so illogical that GMWatch would seek to mimic economic policies from a country whose new minister of economics calls inflation a "bourgeois invention". I find it to be the epitome of stupidity, to hold one of the 10 most corrupt countries in the world as a standard of transparency. I find it ridiculous to hail a law as "progressive" from a nation with one of the vastest natural resources in the world that is about to default on its loans.

But above all else, what set off my rage was the fact that some ass-hat at EcoWatch probably typed up their puff-piece when they had never stood in line to buy any basic food item in their life. In the years leading up to my parents leaving Venezuela, my mom's life schedule was built and defined around the amount of time that she'd have to stand in line at stores to buy goods. When she or one of her friends found a basic supply such as corn flour that had been lacking, they'd alert one another by text message. Has anyone at the OCA had to do that? Has anyone at the Hollywood Food Guild had to buy rice on the black market? Or does their world end when Starbucks doesn't have organic soy milk?

Don't get me wrong: I do not believe in North American exceptionalism. I do not believe that a country is inherently "better" than others. I believe that each nation has strengths and weaknesses, and that we can all learn from one another. So, I invite the tweeters who are celebrating Venezuela's seed law to go visit Venezuela. It is a beautiful nation with rich culture, amazing natural beauty, and fantastic people. Visitors will have a wonderful time, I have no doubt. But Venezuela has its problems. To ignore these and to hail an ill-defined law that can only worsen them is misleading at best. To call Venezuela's law as "progressive", when its President has stated that the solution to the food shortage is to "grow your own" is sheer ignorance. Are people supposed to then grind their own corn flour, too?  

The fact that we, living in North America, have options to buy organic, conventional, non-GMO, gluten-free, or peanut-free is not something that should be taken lightly. Our farmers have the right to grow whatever they'd like, using whatever methods and standards they'd like, as approved by laws and regulations, and that's a freedom and right that should be celebrated. Yet other nations have agricultural sectors that are lagging decades behind, where producing enough food is a serious challenge. The fact that tools and technologies that may help address such challenges are being barred due to philosophical or political ideologies and not science based policies makes progress all the more challenging and defies the notion of an informed democracy. But that's something that all these anti-GMO groups seem to forget in their priviledged positions: the fact that they feel that their developed-nation standards should be applied globally reeks of elitism.

And let me make a suggestion to those tweeters who accept the invitation to visit Venezuela: print out many copies of the articles you shared when you visit. It will come in handy due to the toilet paper shortage.

Defining the GMO debate: Guest post by Mommy PhD

This is a guest post by a fellow #moms4gmos, Dr Alison Bernstein, aka Mommy PhD. You can follow her on twitter (@mommyphd2) or on Facebook.

An old article from Nathanael Johnson on Grist, What I learned from six months of GMO research: None of it matters, from January 2014 showed up in my feed on various social media platforms recently. You may wonder: if none of it matters, why are we still talking about GMOs two years later? To many people, it may not be immediately obvious why this conversation about GMOs is important.

Here’s why I am talking about GMOs and why I think the public conversation about GMOs is important:

Genetic engineering is an important tool for tackling problems of food security around the world.

In the original article, Nathanael wrote that stakes are low in the GMO conversation. I’ll admit, the implications do seem more remote and less severe than they do for, say, the issue of childhood vaccinations. This is especially true for those of us living in the US and other countries where food is abundant and our choices are varied. However, to say the stakes are unimportant seems naive about the realities of food production, particularly in the developing world. Here are a couple of examples of real world problems for which genetic engineering is an important tool to use to solve these problems.

• Opposition to GMOs has delayed the testing and use of Golden Rice (rice fortified with beta-carotene, the precursor of Vitamin A) in populations where children are literally going blind and dying from Vitamin A deficiency. According to the World Health Organization, Vitamin A deficiency is the leading cause of preventable blindness in children. Each year, between a quarter and a half a million Vitamin A-deficient children become blind and, of those, half die within 12 months of going blind. This is most common in Southeast Asia, where rice is a staple of the diet.Rice is low in the dietary precursor of Vitamin A, beta-carotene. Golden Rice produces higher levels of beta-carotene that could provide a significant proportion of the daily required amount of vitamin A. However, anti-GMO opposition has prevented testing and development of this product that could have a dramatic effect on the lives of children in Southeast Asia. Is Golden Rice the only option to provide Vitamin A supplementation? Of course not. Is Golden Rice a very good way to provide Vitamin A supplementation? Probably (we need to study that, but anti-GMO opposition has prevented even studying it). Biofortification is important in crops in other areas of the developing world, where people have little variety in their diets and would greatly benefit from additional nutrients. It seems tragic to disregard a tool that has already been developed while children continue to suffer because some people are afraid of or don’t understand the technology.

• Citrus greening (Huanglongbing) is a disease that kills citrus trees. This is devastating for citrus growers in California, Florida, and other citrus-producing states. In Florida alone, according to a 2012 study from the University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences, citrus greening cost Florida $3.63 billion in lost revenues and 6,611 jobs in the first 5 years since citrus greening was detected in Florida. There are non-genetic engineering strategies out there, but there are significant issues in the implementation of those strategies. Despite success with other disease resistant crops (e.g. ringspot-resistant papayas, which saved the Hawaiian papaya industry), researchers and farmers have been unable to move forward with genetically engineered orange trees because of anti-GMO sentiment. In the developing world, disease resistance is especially critical where diseases threaten staple crops that make up a huge proportion of local diets.  As with Vitamin A deficiency, genetic engineering is not the only answer. However, it is a powerful tool that can be used in combination with other tools to address these really serious problems. Ruling out this technology based on fear and misinformation is hurting citrus growers and the economy.

These are just two examples of issues where the stakes are high. While genetic engineering is not the only strategy available to address these problems, other strategies are failing, or not working fast enough. Disregarding an entire set of tools based on fear and ignorance restricts our ability to find solutions to real problems. Using all the tools available to us seems to be the best way to approach these problems.

Pro-GMO: I don’t think it means what you think it means

Many people think “pro-GMO” means pro-everything that biotechnology ever produces. This is not the case, in my experience. “Pro-GMO” is a misnomer in the sense that people who are “pro-GMO” do not typically lump all genetically engineered products together and accept them blindly just because they are genetically engineered. In fact, one of the main reasons for opposition to mandatory labeling is that the proposed  labels group all genetically engineered crops together with no regard to what the product is. This makes a GMO label meaningless. Instead, those who are “pro-GMO” push for the consideration of each product on its own merits, because the method of breeding tells us nothing about the finished product.  

“Pro-GMO” is also somewhat meaningless, because “GMO” itself, as used in the public discourse, is a meaningless term. Genetic engineering is a breeding method, a very precise breeding method. It refers to a specific a set of techniques used to produce a plant with some desired trait. Nearly all the plants (and animals for that matter) that we eat today have been genetically altered by humans through mutagenesis, crossbreeding and artificial selection. The “natural” or wild counterparts of these foods would be unrecognizable to us. To call only food produced by transgenesis “GMOs”, while ignoring all the others makes no sense.  If genetically modified organism means “any organism that has been modified due to human intervention”, then nearly all of our food is a GMO. The method by which that modification occurs is irrelevant. Lumping everything made by transgenesis together creates an arbitrary category that tells us nothing about the end product. The type of breeding used to create a plant tells us nothing about the properties of that plant. An apple is an apple no matter how it was created.

Most people who are “pro-GMO” recognize that not every genetically engineered crop developed will be useful or a good option for every problem. I have never seen someone who is “pro-GMO” say that genetic engineering is the one and only answer to all of the world’s agricultural and food problems. Genetic engineering is just one piece in a larger toolkit for farmers and scientists to address issues of correcting vitamin deficiencies, reducing pesticide use, increasing the sustainability of agriculture, and saving important crops from disease. However, genetic engineering is a powerful technique and to disregard it entirely because a segment of the population doesn’t understand it is shortsighted.

Pro-GMO is really pro-science and pro-evidence-based policy.

To me, the real issue in the GMO conversation is a much broader concern, not exclusive to GMOs or even agriculture. The real issues are not allowing fear and scientific illiteracy to drive policy and promoting evidence-based policies. The GMO conversation is not occurring in isolation. It is part of a larger conversation about science- and evidence-based policy. Those of us who are adamant about GMOs are so because we are advocating for science- and evidence-based decision making in multiple domains. The future of GMOs in agriculture just happens to be a domain that is a matter of considerable public concern at the moment.

We continue to talk about GMOs because to not advocate for evidence-based policies is to allow an environment to persist where it’s acceptable for creationism to be taught in science classes despite overwhelming scientific consensus on evolution; for politicians to do nothing to combat global warming despite overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming; for parents to choose not to vaccinate their children, contributing to outbreaks of preventable diseases, despite overwhelming scientific consensus on the safety and efficacy of vaccines; and for quacks to take advantage of desperate people by selling fake cures and false hope for cancer, autism and other real and fabricated diseases. We advocate for science and evidence-based policy about GMOs because we advocate for this in all areas. Note: This post was originally published in the Sound of Science Blog in October 2015.

GMO labeling arguments are not exclusive to GMOs

When discussing labeling, there are many different reasons to want GMOs labeled: some people want to know if something's a GMO because they want to avoid pesticides, some people want to avoid food produced by Monsanto, etc. The issue with every single argument is that it's never exclusive to GMOs. I made the following infographic to outline the more common labeling arguments I've heard, as well as a non-GMO example that matches the criteria set out for that argument. This expands on my Facebook post (you can follow me on my new page!)

Click on image for full size

1) GMOs are made in a lab (i.e. they are not "natural"): this also holds true for many polyploids, such as seedless watermelons. Many mutagenic crops are also made in a lab (to learn more about different crop modification techniques, see this post). So if "unnaturalness" is one's reason to label GMOs, then many other non-GMO crops, include many that are accepted under the USDA's organic label, should also be labeled. 

2) GMOs use herbicides: many argue that GMOs made to resist "toxic" levels of herbicides should be labeled. The toxicity of the herbicides and the amounts used are a subject for a separate post altogether, but when it comes to labeling, there are mutagenic, non-GMO crops that are also made to resist herbicides, particularly Clearfield crops made by BASF which resist imidazolinone herbicides. So if labeling proponents want crops that use herbicides to be labeled, many non-GMOs will have to be labeled as well.

3) GMOs are patented: as I've outlined in the past, many non-GMO crops, including decorative plants and crops approved for use in organic farming, are patented. For a partial list of patented crops, see here. So wanting GMOs labeled to avoid patented crops should result in many, many non-GMOs being labeled, too. 

4) GMOs have genes from other species: not only do sweet potatoes have bacterial genes, but these were introduced using the same bacteria that scientists have harnessed when creating a new transgenic crop. At the same time, DNA from viruses are found throughout most genomes, including our own. 

5) GMOs are made by Monsanto: if you want GMOs labeled because Monsanto makes them, then some organic crops should also be labeled. Plus, what about all the GMOs that are not made by Monsanto? The non-browing Arctic Apple was made by small company in Canada.

6) GMOs make their own pesticides: all plants make their own pesticides. For example, wheat produces an insecticide known as DIMBOA (wheat is not considered a GMO). This post gives an overview of pesticides naturally produced by quinoa. 

Finally, there's the "right to know". But, again, what is it that you want to know? If you want to know what method was used to generate the crop from which an ingredient was derived, then why not mutagenic crops? Why not polyploids? Why not protoplast fusion? What is it about the method of transgenesis that has driven you to demand your "right to know" that didn't apply in the past for any of these other crop breeding methods? Feel free to comment below.

Updated on January 5th: The graphic had a typo, so I've swapped it with a corrected version.

GMO DNA in our Blood

Some of you may know that I was recently given notice of my laid off due to a corporate re-org. Luckily, I've had a few good leads and will hopefully start working soon after my last day at my current job. But, needless to say, I find myself with more time on my hands than usual. I've been trying to make the most of it, so you may see an uptick in my number of blog posts and infographics. I also started a Facebook page, which I encourage you to go "Like" and share. I also have a few pieces of brain-candy waiting to be read of the non-science variety. So much to do, so little time!!

This is a cross post from my Facebook page, which I'm broadening here to include links and more information. 

Every few months, anti-GMO websites will publish a meme about the latest paper that has "detected GMO DNA in (insert an organism or fluid that will cause alarm here)". Yes, DNA from GMOs has been detected in goats, humans, blood, organs, colostrum, you name it. But that's not the whole story.

Our DNA is packed away very neatly in the nucleus of our cells and is the "code of life". This cellular DNA is the blueprint for the proteins that are the building blocks of our cells. This is the DNA that gets replicated when our cells divide and is the DNA that gets inherited.

In our blood vessels, there's another type of DNA known as cell-free DNA (cfDNA). It's found in the plasma or the space between cells. It is made up of our DNA from cells that have died, but also foreign DNA including DNA of viruses and bacteria. In pregnant women, there's DNA from cells of the fetus, and this is the material that is used as the basis for non-invasive prenatal screens which allow to test the fetus for Trisomy-21 and other genomic conditions. Finally, there's DNA from the cells of food we've digested. Cell-free DNA is thought to be very short and degraded.

When a GMO feeding test is carried out, it is not uncommon to check to see if the animals fed GMOs have segments of DNA from the food in their blood/tissues. The standard test that is used (PCR) does not distinguish between cellular DNA and cfDNA. This is because the PCR assay requires that you know what to test for, so we can only test whether the transgene is present or not in our sample, whether it's in cellular DNA or cfDNA. To determine if it's integrated into the cell's DNA (i.e horizontal gene transfer), you'd have to know where it's integrated into the genome in the cell's DNA and design the assay with that information in hand. The other option is to look at all the DNA in the cell (i.e. sequence the entire genome) and look to see if DNA from our food has integrated into our genomes.

To date, there's no evidence suggested that DNA from our food gets integrated into cellular DNA. If DNA from our food did integrate into our DNA, then we should see these random DNA snippets in our DNA. However, in the thousands of human genomes that have been sequenced to date, this has never been observed. In the thousands of genomes that we've sequenced, from humans and other species, we have observed that DNA from other species get integrated into cellular DNA (horizontal gene transfer), but it is usually done by a virus or other microorganism. This article outlines how the sweet potato is a "natural GMO" because thousands of years ago, DNA got integrated into its genome using the same method that scientists use today to make GMOs. 

The fact of the matter is that, from a biochemical perspective, DNA from GMOs is identical to DNA from any other organism. It's not toxic, it's not different, it's made up of the same A, T, C, and G, as anything else. Our bodies cannot tell them apart. So DNA from our food has been floating in our plasma since we became a species and ate whatever plants and animals existed back then. I can say with quite a bit of certainty that there is DNA from tangerines currently floating in my bloodstream. I think I've eaten about 5 today.

When the spouse read this post, he commented that "eating Yoda wouldn't increase your midichlorian count and make you a Jedi". I think a more apt analogy is "eating plants and veggies doesn't make you an Ent". 

If you want to learn more about GMO DNA and some of the papers I've reviewed/rebutted on the topic, please see here and here. 

Why aren't GMOs tested on humans?

How much corn is enough corn for a feeding study?
From Wikimedia

A very common question or criticism of GMOs is that they are not properly tested, particularly on humans. The spouse and I had a discussion about this a while back and he asked why GMOs weren't tested like drugs since they're regulated by the FDA. I've read comments such as "I won't believe GMOs are safe until they're tested for 5 years on humans and we examine long-term impact", so I thought we should explore this point.

The regulation of GMOs is based on the principle of "substantial equivalence", meaning that the nutritional content of the GE crop and the non-GE crop that it originated from is the same. In the past, I've reviewed papers that have done comparisons between crops generated by transgenesis (the method used to make GMOs) vs crops generated by traditional cross breeding and mutagenesis. The transgenic crops had far fewer unintended consequences than the crops generated by traditional breeding methods. What remains to be demonstrated is that the protein introduced poses no greater risk to human health than non-GE crops, which is why studies on allergenicity and animal feeding studies are performed.

So "why don't we do clinical trials on GMOs the same way we do for drugs?" Drugs are designed to cause a change in the human body: that's the whole point behind them. Since drugs are altering something in humans, it's important to know the side-effects that they may cause and whether or not they're causing the anticipated effect (i.e. is it better than placebo). In contrast, GMOs are designed to be equivalent to their non-GE counterparts: they aren't drugs or nutritional supplements. GE crops which ARE designed to impact human health, such as vitamin-A enriched rice, should be tested in humans to determine if the desired outcome is achieved (i.e that the rice actually delivers vitamin-A to the body). But such studies are not the same as looking for unknown long-term effects.

Another reason why is that there's no plausible mechanism for harm. In the past, I've explained how nothing can truly ever be proven to be 100% safe, whether it's water, a computer or a car. Researchers examine safety when there's a plausible mechanism whereby harm can occur. For example, a cholesterol lowering drug may act by interfering with cholesterol synthesis in the liver, so it may make sense to see if it impacts other metabolic functions in the liver. But when it comes to the traits that are introduced into GE crops, there isn't really a mechanism of harm: for example, the Arctic Apple is engineered to have a gene turned off, and the gene doesn't even exist in humans, so how could that harm us? This is why most scientists wouldn't want to spend years trying to secure grants for a long term feeding study when the likelihood of having an important discovery or contribution to the field is so low. Safety is relative, and there have been many long-term feeding studies in animals which haven't observed any harm, suggesting that follow-up testing of GE crops in humans is unnecessary.

An additional issue is that the experimental design would be incredibly difficult. Unlike animal feeding studies, you cannot control for other dietary factors or for lifestyle of the humans in the study. In animal feeding studies, all the animals are inbred so there's very little genetic variability. All the animals live in the same type of cage, get the same amount of food, sleep, water, etc, but none of this applies to humans. As a mental exercise, let's imagine that we're going to embark on a study examining the long term effects of GM crops. We'll narrow it down to a single GM crop: Bt-Corn. Since corn derivatives are found in many processed foods, we'd have to eliminate other sources of Bt by making all the participants adhere to an organic diet. Most sweet corn in the US is not of the Bt-variety, but since we want to be able to keep track of how much GE corn our participants are ingesting, we'll have to use this type. Then, we have to figure out the duration of our experiment: how long will these people have to eat Bt-corn to get this unknown effect? 1 year? 2 years? 5? 10? Let's keep it simple and say one year (although I seriously doubt that any die-hard anti-GMO activist would be satisfied with 1 year). Then we have to figure out who we will be feeding: will we focus on individuals of a single genetic background to eliminate other variables? Will we include children? Pregnant women? (I mention these specific categories because there's no end to anti-GMO blog posts about the dangers of GMOs for these individuals). Next, we'd have to grow all the corn in the same place: studies have shown that geographic and seasonal variability changes the nutritional content of crops more than whether the crop is a GMO or not (see here and here). Since we want all the participants to get the same corn for the entire duration of the study, we'd have to grow it all in a single place, process it, and all the participants would need a deep freezer to store their 1 year's worth of sweet corn. Then, we have to decide how much corn they'd need to eat in order to observe this unknown effect. One ear a week? A day? Who would sign up for a study eating an ear of corn a day for a year?? And then who is going to pay for this 1 year study on many people of organic food consumption plus GE-corn? If Monsanto or other seed developers pay for it, will anyone trust the data?

There are FDA guidelines for examining the impact of food additives in humans has several important points including this one: "A food or food additive generally will be considered suitable for clinical testing if the substance is unlikely to produce significant toxic effects at the levels to which the subjects of the clinical study will be exposed. This usually is determined from the results of toxicity studies in animals or by examining existing data on population exposure. However, in cases where the type of toxic response associated with the consumption of a food or food additive by experimental animals is judged to be severe, exposure of subjects in clinical studies to the additive may need to be significantly below the level found to produce no toxic effects in an appropriate species." If the individuals who want to do long-term feeding studies in humans are looking for evidence of harm due to "long term toxic effects", then based on the statement above from the FDA, such studies would never be cleared by an ethics panel. Other important points from the document include the fact that such studies should have different dosages and the language used for long-term studies is weeks/months, not years.

This isn't a cop-out. If we're looking for a harmful effect but don't know what it is because we don't have a reasonable mechanism whereby harm may occur, how can you design the experiment? What variables will you measure? As this document from the FDA outlines, clinical trials for drugs go through very specific phases and can be variable in duration and size. However the thing they all have in common is that they're looking for a very specific effect (improvement of the disease or its symptoms in the patient). Doctors know exactly what to measure, and look for any possible side-effects, which end up getting listed in the package insert for the drug, even if they are not causal.

The final point is this: what is exclusive or unique about GMOs that merits such rigorous testing, yet excludes other crop modification techniques? If your argument is that GMOs are made by scientists in a lab and are consequently riskier, so are seedless watermelons. If your argument is that GMOs have genes from other species and are consequently riskier, so do sweet potatoes which have genes from bacteria naturally introduced thousands of years ago. If your argument is that we've had thousands of years to co-evolve with other crops but not to GMOs, then I ask you how it is that I, an individual of Iranian descent, have a passion fruit vine, which is native to South America, growing in my backyard in California? I'm pretty sure that the passion fruit and I didn't co-evolve and adapt to one another throughout our evolutionary history. The passion fruit, the sweet potato, and the seedless watermelon did not undergo any testing, animal or human, yet many continue arguing that all GMOs regardless of trait should undergo animal and human testing.

Well, I hope you all have a wonderful holiday season. If you don't subscribe to this blog, please consider doing so or you could also follow me on twitter where I post everything I publish from this blog and Biofortified.